TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (3) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rges provided by the assessee from the tenants. He has also observed that deduction from the property income can only be allowed as provided for in ss. 22 to 27 of the IT Act. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) has confirmed the finding of the AO and, hence, the present appeal is filed by the assessee to the Tribunal. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned authorised representative of the assessee submitted that the authorities are not justified in disallowing service charges claimed by the assessee. In this connection, the assessee submitted that the gross rent received from the various tenants included service charges also. Therefore, the same should have been allowed as deduction by the authorities. In this conn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....78 ITR 311 (Gau), Trustees, Nagore Durgah vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 805 (Mad) and Lekh Raj Channa vs. ITO (1990) 37 TTJ (Del) 297. Finally, it is submitted that the finding of the authorities should be reversed in view of the submissions made above. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities and submitted that the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of various service charges incurred are unfounded and cannot be allowed as deduction from the rental income. The claim of the assessee cannot be allowed as deduction under ss. 22 to 27 of the IT Act. In this connection it is submitted that the deduction from the property income can be allowed only on the expenditure which have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Its claim that the rent received was inclusive of these expenses was also manifested in the decision of the Rent Controller in case No. 427A of 1952 and the Tribunal has taken due notice of the said case for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72 in ITA Nos. 3316 and 4892/Cal of 1974-75 dt. 24th Dec., 1975. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the AO for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1974-75 has held that the assessee is entitled for deduction only in respect of the items mentioned in s. 24(1) only and disallowed the other expenses claimed by the assessee. The assessee took up the matter in appeal to the AAC and the AAC upheld the finding of the AO. On second appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal by an order dt. 24th Dec., 1975 restored th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee and the tenants to the effect that the assessee was under obligation to incur expenses for providing security and sanitary services, etc., and the rent paid by the tenants was a gross rent which was inclusive of the said services and accordingly, the AAC allowed the assessee's appeal and the Revenue did not challenge the said findings of the AAC in appeal upto the asst. yr. 1982-83. For the asst. yr. 1983-84, the AO disallowed part of the expenses being excessive though he has not disputed that there was tacit understanding between the landlord and the tenants for providing various services and the rent included both the services also. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. Similarly, in the asst. yr. 1984-85 the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g effect both on the assessee as well as on the Revenue if the point on which the decision has been given is the same. But that principle will not apply if the facts are variable from year to year and the new facts warrants a different and contrary decision". Similarly, in the case of CWT vs. N.R. Sirkar, their Lordships have held a decision in an earlier year is not binding in a subsequent year in tax matters. But there should be finality and certainty in Revenue proceedings. A decision on a question cannot be reopened unless it was arbitrary or perverse. There should be no variation from that decision unless there are fresh circumstances to warrant a deviation from the previous decision. In revising a decision in a subsequent year, the Co....